Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
April 6, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
129438 Michael F. Cavanagh
129482 Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman,
RICHARD T. CLERC, Personal Representative of Justices
the Estate of SARALYN M. CLERC, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 129438
COA: 254940
Chippewa CC: 01-005641-NH
CHIPPEWA COUNTY WAR MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
ROBERT BAKER, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________/
RICHARD T. CLERC, Personal Representative of
the Estate of SARALYN M. CLERC, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 129482
COA: 254940
Chippewa CC: 01-005641-NH
CHIPPEWA COUNTY WAR MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
ROBERT BAKER, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 4, 2005
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCL 7.302(G)(1), in
lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Chippewa Circuit Court,
although on a basis different from that articulated by the Court of Appeals.
2
The proponent of expert testimony in a medical malpractice case must satisfy the
court that the expert is qualified under MRE 702, MCL 600.2955 and MCL 600.2169.
The court’s gatekeeper role under MRE 702
mandates a searching inquiry, not just of the data underlying expert
testimony, but also of the manner in which the expert interprets and
extrapolates from those data. Thus, it is insufficient for the proponent of
[an] expert opinion merely to show that the opinion rests on data viewed as
legitimate in the context of a particular area of expertise (such as medicine).
The proponent must also show that any opinion based on those data
expresses conclusions reached through reliable principles and methodology.
[Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler, 470 Mich 749, 782 (2004).]
Consistent with this role, the court “shall” consider all of the factors listed in MCL
600.2955(1). If applicable, the proponent must also satisfy the requirement of MCL
600.2955(2) to show that a novel methodology or form of scientific evidence has
achieved general scientific acceptance among impartial and disinterested experts in the
field.
Here, the trial court did not consider the range of indices of reliability listed in
MCL 600.2955. Rather, it focused on its concern that plaintiff could not present specific
studies on the growth rate of untreated cancer. Therefore, the court did not fulfill its
gatekeeping role because it failed to consider other factors such as, for example, whether
the methodology used by plaintiff’s experts is “generally accepted within the relevant
expert community,” is relied upon as a “basis to reach the type of opinion being
proffered” by experts in the field, or is “relied upon by experts outside of the context of
litigation.” MCL 600.2955(1)(e)-(g).
Accordingly, we remand to the Chippewa County Circuit Court to complete the
proper inquiry. Leave to appeal the August 4, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is,
in all other respects, DENIED.
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would deny leave to appeal.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
April 6, 2007 _________________________________________
p0403 Clerk